About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
familiar with the washington environment. let's start with the chuck hagel filibuster situation. senator mitch mcconnell said, i think the president is entitled to an up or down. that is simple majority vote on nominations, both to his cabinet and to the executive branch and also to the judiciary, clearly the republicans have somewhat changed their tune on the that. but if we do see, as we're seeing now, a sort of filibuster on nominees is this going to be the new normal now in washington? >> the consistency is not a virtue any longer, but what i'm surprised about with respect to the senate actions here, i serve there had the last 189 years, left two years ago, i served with chuck hagel, he served there 12 years and i'm very surprised that people who served with him in his own caucus, he caucused with them every week, they know him as a squad leader and infantry man who was twice wounded, he has two purple hearts by the way. they're suggesting somehow he's unworthy? it's unbelievable to me, every time you think this is sort of the nth degree of gridlock, i hope you dpind enough republica
the right, harry reid says that's absolutely what's going on with the chuck hagel situation. he says i guess to be able to run for the senate, you are need to have a resumÉ that says i helped filibuster one of the president's nominees. maybe that helps keep a tea party guy or woman from running against you. do you really think that it will help somebody when they go back to their district for an election in 2014 that they're able to say i stood up to the president on chuck hagel? >> i think that, look, most americans i think are not terribly tuned into the nomination process of chuck hagel, probably doesnn't have strong feelings about him. say you're lindsay graham and you have a town meeting, a lot of people are thinking is graham really with us? is he fighting the president to the wall the way we want him to? lindsay graham does have to be very concerned about getting primaried. everyone's talking about chuck hagel. i think back in their district the intensity, the people who demonstrate real interest, intensity and knowledge about the situation, are they the conservative base? for the mo
. >>> the senate armed services committee can vote as early easy tomorrow on the confirmation of chuck hagel for secretary. if he makes it through and he probably will, it's on to a full senate vote. about a dozen senators are expected to vote no in large part because of past statements with israel, iran and nuclear weapons. president obama is planning a trip to the region in april. that is billed as a way to repair a strained relationship who himself just won reelection in a bruising campaign. sounds familiar there. actually the domestic political situation in israel is fascinating. as i indicated, netanyahu won the most seats, 31 in the past election. it was many fewer than what was expected. it was a surprising surge from a new party headed by a man who is called the oprah of israel. a pinterest party. now the question for netanyahu informing his coalition government. will he partner with the far right as he has in the past or try to person with the new centrist and form a new coalition and move to the left and make concessions as part of that. some of the concessions he would likely have
with the hague el vote and north korea. first, former senator chuck hagel, the senate armed services committee about to vote any minute now on the nomination to be defense chief. hagel will face a full senate floor vote later this week where he faces strong opposition of the former colleagues on iran, iraq and nuclear weapons. and speaking of nukes, north korea test fired one today. the underground blast registered with the same power as a magnitude 4.9 earthquake. it's the north's third nuclear test but by far the most powerful and the first since kim jung un took power. the u.n. security council in emergency meetings over it and aides say president obama address the defiance in tonight's state of the union address and that is just six hours away. lots to talk about today with former congressman joe sestak and served in the navy. welcome. >> good to be with you. thank you. >> let's talk start with hagel. by most accounts, chuck hagel had a shaky day at the confirmation hearing and surprising even some democrats with the answers and nonanswers. how do you think he did and do you ultimately exp
. thank you. >> let's talk start with hagel. by most accounts, chuck hagel had a shaky day at the confirmation hearing and surprising even some democrats with the answers and nonanswers. how do you think he did and do you ultimately expect he'll get confirmed? >> well, his presentation was spot on but that said i'm not always spot on when i do these interviews either. it's whether the substance was there or not and there's three important issues clear out of that hearing and why he'll go through the nomination process successfully. first, he said he will defend israel. second, iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and third, he is leader to transform our military, both for moving from southwest asia to the western pacific where 60% of the naichl forces are moved for a reason and second to transform our military to the new type of warfare where often based upon knowledge and the agility and speed to touch someone quickly. this also is necessary in the western pacific where china, for example, has 80 sub marines just to our 50. even john mccain who was quite critical in the hear
ground. chuck hagel has faced a really ugly confirmation battle. republicans have used an unprecedented filibuster to at least slow down that confirmation. you said on filibusters that filibusters abused terribly today, especially on nominations. filibusters against nominees create a chilling effect that keeps top talent from even accepting nominations." is it time for a more comprehensive filibuster reform? >> unfortunately, i've come to that conclusion. the filibuster was used in the past but used very rarely. but it's now used as an everyday matter of course. we had 130 some motions in congress. you can't run a country that way. you can't run a government. especially with regard to the white house when you have a limited amount of time for each of these members to serve in a cabinet or high-level positionfr a year or sometimes even two years is unacceptable. we're going to have to revisit the filibuster in nominations and hopefully they'll do it before this congress. >> i agree with you, the 60-vote senate, especially as it relates to executive branch nominations is really troubling.
) scottrade. voted "best investment services company." >>> it is still likely, very likely, that chuck hagel willened up being the next defense secretary but it's hitting snacks. and the latest one looks to set a bad precedent. hagel has enough support to win a confirmation vote. his nomination cleared tuesday on a party line vote and not a single senate democrat has opposed opposition to him. since democrats have 55 seats and since two republicans mike joe haines and thad cochran are backing him, that should be that. but it isn't. because hagel is facing a filibuster. meaning he'll first need to come up with 60 votes before he's allowed to have a straight up or down vote on the senate floor. the resistance is coming from republicans. to the right hagel is a traitor. for 12 years he was a republican senator, a rising star in his party that was touted as a vp prospect in 2000. but he turn ond the iraq war and left the senate, refussed to endorse john mccain in 2008 and teamed up with barack obama. now he is the living definition of a republican in name only. there are other factors too. linds
reacted more quickly. i think john kerry will push the administration and that direction. chuck hagel to a certain extent by not putting boots in the ground and areas where we know little and have no idea what the out come will be. the example is libya and what happened in benghazi. a huge intem jens failure. not the state department, but the cia. >> with syria, we move our red lines and losing credibility. you said that militarism has negatively affected the period abroad. i wonder if you weigh in on whether you think his drone program or the expansion of the drone program has damaged our reputation abroad even further. >> for damaged our reputation bad low. the idea that a president is sitting in the white house with a hit list with candidates for targeted killings is an outrage. the real blunder was to nominate john brennan as the director of central intelligence that explain a policy he orchestrated and conceived and is responsible for implementing. any other would note have dealt with the questions that john brennan had to deal with. i think obama should go back to the positions
and is the real lesson of when you abandon a political party as chuck hagel did with the republicans and a lesson of payback in politics? >> i think it is. you know, it's loyalty. it's breaking the omerita. it's a guy who was a ten years ago considered even a leading candidate for the republican presidential nomination and went against his own president and party and even worse than that was actually right, i think, about what he said. in other words, one of the big ironies now and seeing now with the debate over hagel is if you look at the things he was saying in 2002 and 2003, a lot of it was about avoiding excess cost. the excess costs of a war that he said was unnecessary, namely iraq. here's a guy that's savvy about what he's called a bloated pentagon budget coming in at a time when the pentagon budget has to be cut so it's interesting to see whether, you know, down the line after all of this bad blood he gets credit for that. >> michael, i loved the end of your article in "the national journal." you write in washington one is forgiven many things. being right is another matter. for too many
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)